"My Religion Allows This!" - AM Singhvi argues on Sabarimala

Ajouté : 2026-04-30

[00:00:00]Well, I have put 23 judgments in a chart. All of them reaching the Supreme Court in 2526 have come up through a ladder and all of them have come by being initiated by an adherent of the religion who challenges the inroad into his 2526. So I'm an individual or she's a denomination. You have inroaded or intruded by legislation or by some form of legislation. I am the challenger.

[00:00:24]Your law actually has to comment allow it in this case. I understand it's 10 years old and all that. This must be clarified in this judgment time judges.

[00:00:32]The entire frame of the proceedings is inverted and put upside down.

[00:00:36]>> This is what my sister said. So I was there the first day. No, but it's much give me a few minutes.

[00:00:41]It's important. You know she may have to just sit a few minutes beyond time. I'll finish >> just a few minutes if possible. The frame of the proceedings must be I have a right as an individual 256.

[00:00:52]>> We will shift 10 minutes. I'm grateful.

[00:00:54]I'm very grateful. I I'll finish then.

[00:00:56]I'll finish. I am a individual who has 25 26 25 rights. She is a denomination who has 26 rights. When either of our two rights respectively is intruded upon by my learned friends clients by legislation, delegated legislation whatever which I think is diluting my right, I go in a writer asserting my right and he is the defender showing I have rightly violated Mr. Singui's right because I come under public order, health, morality or some other part of the constitution. your ship decides it 23 cases in my chart till 2025 December not one case of this kind now what happens when you turn that upside down you don't have a challenger whose 25 26 right is affected you don't have a legislation most important legislation includes delegate legislation you don't have a legislation you have a supposed PI petitioner coming and saying look I believe that this religious practice is not a good practice they may be right or wrong is not the point now that chap who has a right under 256 is is not the challenger. The government who can intrude and limit the right by public order, health or whatever lordship calls it is not the respondent. Both of us, me and the government are respondents to the PIL's claim that according to an objective PIL collective consciousness standard, this religious practice is bad. That completely destroys the very concepts and that should not be allowed.

[00:02:16]>> A believer will never question it.

[00:02:18]>> No, that's the first part. No, I'm going further. My lord is >> who is this? Who is the petisha? So that's the first that's a I'm at the moment on bord comes to 115 115 I'm on b my lord just a nagata is absolutely right that is issue a I regarding b first I'm on the frame of the proceeding which lordship should never allow because it distorts the adjudicator matrix for 25 and 26 completely Dr. Sing with if again >> yes >> a new fangled religious leader >> yes >> forms a denomination >> yes >> and says that a mass suicide by my believers will attain salvation if they do it on a particular day then will not any individual be entitled to invoke public health and morality [snorts] as a ground to strike let me answer let me ask allow me to answer your lordship has traveled many many millions of miles on PIL since it was invented in the 70s and 80s. So it's too far gone to say Ps are per se not maintainable. Nobody's saying >> that is but your lordship has to be very careful which you are generally again.

[00:03:24]So the paradigm is on a case to case basis >> but it may it may be more than that I I want to say it's more than that case to case your lordship anyway manages pis as an unruly horse and your lordship finds it every day you say dismissed or allowed etc. In matter of religion the normal predominant and overwhelming role should be to prevent and discourage PIS.

[00:03:45]I'm going beyond the PI students. Your individual case says I'm a motivated public not a private interest litigant a political interest litigant a personal interest litigant and you dismiss it.

[00:03:55]Your lordship says I'm not given a correct affidavit. I have done five cases against this man. I maled. That's a different test. I'm now giving your lordship a higher test in 25 and 26 in particular. 25 and 26 is calibrated on faith on belief. When your lordship judicial review is so careful about the collective belief so everybody on this side this collectivity has a belief. My lord's test judicial review by going first through that subjective belief and then applying a slight objective test to that prison. Mus how is it possible? Now if a person says my religion allows me to mad kill people or mal do something then the state will come up with something or if some law and order is there immediately you're los extreme cases p can come very well let me say p can come and that's an extreme example but these are not those cases what is the case here is that a practice established well I don't know how old you got we are not discussing >> thousand years old how many years how many years at least your lord she will take This case we are discussing 200 years old issues so many years old somebody comes and files a P saying this practice is bad Dr. Simply the question issue seven is >> yes >> whether the person in exercise of P >> yes >> can approach the court with regard to a particular religious >> so I'll not give up management of religious affairs and my question to you is if it's facade or otherwise the religious practice or affairs of management >> yes yes >> the trans the lakshman raika of public order >> correct >> or health or morality. How will the courts?

[00:05:36]>> So, my first answer is I I will not go to a court >> themselves from obtaining such >> I will not give a per answer. I will concede that I cannot argue that per se never ever will a PI lie. That's point number one. In the example which justice baki gave possibly it may lie. I mean a man egregiously giving some proclamation about today you are >> these are all extreme and exceptional >> extreme. No therefore let me let me give flesh and blood to what I'm saying.

[00:06:01]where why the court should have even wait for why can't the court take so slow motion >> now you can take so exactly now >> the first constitutional drama of a constitutional court is that if this thing happens why you wait for a p why can't you take so motor >> fully that however does not mean that pil becomes a vehicle for interpreting either a religious practice or its violation by public that cannot so much as your lordship's threshold for entertaining that kind of P will be 10 times higher than normal Now just worship will give me 10 bits extra. Lordship said >> no no no your worship has your people there.

[00:06:39]I I am I am already intimidated by nine judge benchm I am now intimidated by nine more >> nine more [laughter] now 115 115 this is very short just 115 I have said the first par 115 is a chart now this chart is at appendix 2 in my par 204 this is very interesting after all for 75 80 years we've had these articles we've had the litigation why did nobody try this. Your lordship can even allow it. I'm not saying this P be dismissed but your lordship law should be clear. Your lordships can allow this PL to be maintained subject to your lawship discretion. It's too late in the day perhaps to say that the PIL now you go back and start all over.

[00:07:20]>> But your lordship should be able to lay down this law for 2526.

[00:07:24]>> But regarding maintainability or entertainment of PIL broadly I think principles are well laid down.

[00:07:30]>> Well the 2526 it's a it's a much more higher threshold is what I'm trying to emphasize. Now come to 20 sorry 132.

[00:07:37]Maybe maybe that your argument is that while entertaining a PIA, it is likely to have an impact on the rights of those who are not before us.

[00:07:45]>> Yes.

[00:07:45]>> Under 25 any other question's direct prayer is the direct prayer of all such PIs is to change the practices. What is this P?

[00:07:54]There's not a PH declare that these practices are unconstitutional or eliminate them. Let's forget any other case. Now you are religion is collectivity of millions, faith of millions. A third party is enabled by direct access to article 32 to change it and we are at the most defending. We are not able to show the contours of public order. So I say look what is wrong in this. There is no state respondent. I am a respondent.

[00:08:20]>> Can the court decide it without hearing the representatives of the millions? Now as we saying millions have faith. Can the court decide the issue? tell there which the millions still believe in it without even hearing them and there is a mechanism to hear them >> so absolutely not but that is only natural justice >> I think >> I'm going further you also here >> then decision cannot be made binding on them >> should not be entertained with a simple reason >> yes >> that such a person who files the P who is not a believer is not an agreed party >> he's not a stranger is an interoper >> that's my party I'm coming to that but just see this chart first 132 Please ask the question why in 80 years or 78 years of our republic why this never happened the lordship and and four of these are suits with evidence just turn to 32 132 sorry 132 finally just >> beside the issue which my brother and my sister pointed out >> yes no >> the most difficult task for a court >> yes >> might be how to give a declaration that the belief for millions of people is wrong or erroneous or >> that's what happens in a p unlike your lordships in a p that Please demolish this illegal colony. Your lordship here has some association. Your lordship is not deciding a corpus of a religion which may be 1,000 years old, maybe 500 years old, maybe 200 years old. Your lordship is deciding a mega issue way beyond the megaess of a PIL.

[00:09:44]>> So it is outside the scope of a debate under the constitution in a PIL. Such a question is beyond the scope of debate in a court of law >> on twin grounds that PIL on 25 and on the ground that is by non-adherence to religion both grounds. Now let's come to 132.

[00:10:02]>> Such a person will not be entertained even to maintain a suit or rule 8.

[00:10:07]Correct.

[00:10:07]>> That's the next point. It's coming an issue. Absolutely right because it's coming an issue a your lordship will not entertain a suit but in a direct 32 you will entertain and change. Suppose this bal succeeds your subala practices will end >> in a civil suit. The court is very well within its jurisdiction to hold >> that a particular kind of is not a that that may not fall beyond the religious practices. The court can hold evidence.

[00:10:31]I >> ask how are you agreed? What is the cause of action?

[00:10:34]>> In a single suit based upon evidence the court might general princip may do that may no. So therefore just see 132. Now let me show 132. We have had 80 years of our republic and many issues of arisen.

[00:10:44]The I'll not take more than 2 minutes on this chart. A very instructive chart.

[00:10:48]First is Shirun Mat 54 Rit petition always by the claimer of 251 or 26 always ratil then dearu I've given all the detail of which act which section what the issue I don't have time to read it all are given. Now the four of these are suits.

[00:11:04]>> Four of these 23 are suits appendix.

[00:11:06]>> Number four is Moti Mahindas SPI is a suit in Patna and they had full trial full evidence full decrees then five da committee rate sar not a single collective not even order one rule 10 kind of collectivity with that representative notice in the newspapers and all nothing >> representative. Yes, not even that. Then eight, sorry, eight is a suit is a second suit. Then where is Seamal? So all these four of these are suits. 142 >> at page 142 I've given the four suits out of this list. 142 23 cases none of them in a PIL format of this kind none of them are collective format and four of them suits. And let me concede that P per se is maintainable if you talk absolute per se. I'm not saying that in a rare case. But please be extremely cautious or we'll come back now to page uh 115 par 206.